MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123460849

Enumeration of Nash Equilibria for Two-Player Games

2009· article· en· W3123460849 on OpenAlexaff
David Avis, Gabriel D. Rosenberg, Rahul Savani, Bernhard von Stengel

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnumerationPolytopeLexicographical orderPolyhedronNash equilibriumVertex (graph theory)Computer scienceImplementationBest responseCombinatoricsMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsMathematical optimizationGraphProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes algorithms for finding all Nash equilibria of a twoplayer game in strategic form. We present two algorithms that extend earlier work. Our presentation is self-contained, and explains the two methods in a unified framework using faces of best-response polyhedra. The first method is based on the known vertex enumeration program lrs, for “lexicographic reverse search”. It enumerates the vertices of only one best-response polytope, which determine a complementary face in the other polytope. The second method is a modification of the known EEE algorithm, for “enumeration of extreme equilibria”. We also describe a second, as yet not implemented, variant that is space efficient. We discuss details of implementations of the lrs-based and the EEE algorithm, and report on computational experiments that compare the two algorithms, which show that both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLondon School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science)Same topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207